Bryan Caplan's book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids helped me calm down a lot about this topic.

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046...

Probably because it wouldn't accomplish much: https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046...

Ensure your kids are reasonably happy. It's not super expensive, they don't need a trip to Disney World every year or anything. Try not to let them make obvious, life altering mistakes. Past that, just enjoy the ride.

> Or to put it another way, the ROI of investing additional time into raising your children remains high as you go from spending 5 minutes a day up to 1,000 minutes a day.

Do you mean ROI for the parent (satisfaction of spending time with your child) or for the child? It seems counter-intuitive but I believe a lot of research has shown that upbringing actually doesn't matter too much, provided you meet a certain obvious threshold (giving them proper food, not abusing them, etc)

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046...

Having children has always been a choice, e.g. historical birthrates are closely coupled to harvest success. So people are choosing to have fewer children now, and most of that has to do with opportunity costs.

Caplan's "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids" (https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046...) has some data showing that parents are putting more and more time into children. (And his argument is that it is mostly unnecessary, i.e. it doesn't correspond to improved outcomes for children, given a relatively normal stable family.) I wonder how much of this is just changed social expectations (e.g. call Police / Child Services if you see a kid walking home along from school), how much is social signaling, how much is reduced family support.

Bryan Caplan wrote an interesting book, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, that is also germane to this topic (https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046...).

1. Yes. You don't know if your kid will be the one who solves or ameliorates climate change.

2. Human life is its own good.

3. Bryan Caplan discusses this and many other interesting topics in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046....

My view is more that most people have a distaste for learning, education and autodidacticism because they grow up steeped in a culture that discourages these things, while simultaneously rewarding the opposite sorts of behaviors.

Caplan has a counterargument to this - twin studies and various observational studies that attempt to do similar things. He goes into detail occasionally on his blog, and also in his book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...

(The focus of the book is not on education, but on how variation in parenting strategy does not affect adult outcomes. )

Also, your view is not incompatible with Caplan's "elitist, Ayn Rand-ian worldview". Caplan merely asserts that at the time of entering college, it's pointless for most people. The specific reason at which it became pointless for them is irrelevant - "socioeconomic factors", genetics or whatever, it's still a waste of money.

They've figured that out too. Behold, economist Bryan Caplan's book "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids": http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465...

Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out?

This is the thesis of Bryan Caplan.

He has gathered a lot of evidence (mainly from twin studies) suggesting that the specific details of how you raise your kids don't matter much [1] - your kids will turn out to be the average of their parents + regression to the mean.

I.e., by age 25, the children of Amy Chua and slacker dad will turn out the same, regardless of whether Chua or slacker gets their way.

WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428950457531...

Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

[1] Within the bounds of non-abusive middle class first-world parents. As one example, if both parents are religious, the child is likely to be religious. The only factor the parents have significant influence over is Lutheran vs Catholic.